Stuck on Shankar Problem 14.4.3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quiablo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shankar
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving Shankar Problem 14.4.3, where the user attempts to derive the Hamiltonian for a quantum system involving spin operators and a magnetic field. The user correctly identifies the need to express psi(t) in terms of psir(t) and applies the product rule for derivatives, but suspects an error in including the term w * Sz in the Hamiltonian. The user seeks clarification on the incorrect operation leading to this discrepancy, indicating a strong grasp of quantum mechanics principles but uncertainty in the application of operator algebra.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics, specifically Hamiltonians and spin operators.
  • Familiarity with operator algebra in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of the product rule for differentiation in the context of operators.
  • Experience with rotating frames in quantum systems.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of Hamiltonians in quantum mechanics, focusing on Shankar's text.
  • Study the application of the product rule in operator algebra.
  • Learn about the implications of rotating frames in quantum mechanics.
  • Examine common pitfalls in deriving expressions for quantum states and operators.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in quantum mechanics, particularly those tackling advanced problems involving Hamiltonians and spin systems. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of operator methods in quantum theory.

Quiablo
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I am really stuck here, and I would really appreciate if someone could help me out. The statement of the problem is attached as a image. Some equations referred by the problem are also attached in another image. I will try to explain how I have reasoned using more words than formulas, since its so darn difficult to write expressions using this editors. Here we go:

First I inverted eq. 14.4.35, multiplying both sides by the same exponential shown without the minus sign. This way we get an expression for psi(t) in terms of psir(t). Substituting that in 14.3.34, and considering that H = - gama * S * B, i got:

(i * hbar (d/dt) + gama*S*B) * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) * psi(t) = 0

Then i applyied the derivative using the product rule (which I am not 100% sure if can be done with operators like exp (iwt * Sz / hbar) ) and got:

i * hbar ( iw * Sz / hbar) * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) * psi(t) + i * hbar * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) (d/dt) psi(t) = - gama*S*B * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) * psi(t)

Multiplying everything by exp(-iwt * Sz / hbar) to the left side, and considering that: exp(-iwt * Sz / hbar) is the operator that rotates the spinor around the z axis; exp(-iwt * Sz / hbar) * Sz * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) = Sz (rotates counterclockwise and clockwise around the same axis); B * exp(iwt * Sz / hbar) = Br, which is the (static) B field in the rotating frame; exp(-iwt * Sz / hbar) * S equals an operator I called Sr, which is the version of S in the rotating frame (static relative to that rotating frame), i got to the expression:

- w * Sz * psi(t) + i * hbar (d/dt) psi(t) = - gama*Sr*Br * psi(t)


Which is the same as:

i * hbar (d/dt) psi(t) = (w * Sz * - gama*Sr*Br) * psi(t)

Now if we compare this to the form of 14.4.34, we see that the Hamiltonian is indeed indepent of time, as expected, but I am almost 100% positive that this is the wrong Hamiltonian, for if we carry on the computations we don't get to the result shown in 14.4.36. I am pretty positive that the term w * Sz SHOULD NOT be in this expression, for it it weren't there, the right answer would be obtained. Can anyone tell me what operation was done incorrectly by me in the steps above?
 

Attachments

  • problem_14_4_3.JPG
    problem_14_4_3.JPG
    53 KB · Views: 549
  • equations.JPG
    equations.JPG
    55.1 KB · Views: 511
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Doesnt anyone here have any idea of what I am talking about, or my presentation is so badly written hat none has understood what I meant?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K